SB Nation User Blog: Jason R

Steeler Quote History Quiz #2

Jason R — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:38:37 -0000

Old school linebacker gets called names; call him a 9-time pro-bowler while you're at it

John Harold Lambert--also known as Jack--was of course one of the great NFL players of all time. It's hard to argue with the numbers: 9 pro bowl appearances, 4 Super Bowl titles, 1974 defensive rookie of the year, the 1976 defensive player of the year. Lambert was also named to the NFL's 75th anniversary all-time team; the consumate linebacker and ultimate Pittsburgh Steeler embodied everything that was rough, tough, and mean about the Steel City.

Yet for all his toothless ferocity, Lambert was still badmouthed by one particular opponent. For Steeler Quote History Quiz #2, who said the following about Jack Lambert:

""I don't care for the man. He makes more money than I do, and he don't have no teeth. He's dracula."

Poll

Was it:

Earl Campbell

14 votes

Hollywood Henderson

58 votes

Ken Stabler

19 votes

Ed "Too Tall" Jones

17 votes

108 votes | Poll has closed

Does the schedule look easy to you?

Jason R — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:55:02 -0000

NFL's strength of schedule ratings a fluid thing; "Iron makes iron"

Looking at the Steelers' schedule for this upcoming season, it's probably a little hard for Pittsburgh fans to not rub their hands with glee. Compared to last year's brutal slate of games, this year the Steelers have the 29th hardest schedule--that's out of 32 teams, younz guys--in the league, sayeth ESPN.

Before we imagine Big Ben and the boys hoisting another Lombardi just yet, we might just want to temper our excitement. To wit: Baltimore has just the 28th hardest schedule, and the Birds are sure to be smarting from getting swept by the Black and Gold last season. In addition, "strength of schedule" is, especially in the NFL, a fluid thing; there always seem to be "turnaround teams" that go from 5-11 to 11-5, for instance, and that would be why odds-makers don't handicap the entire season based on such superfluous criteria as strength of schedule.

Having thus had our collective and eternally high Steelers expectations brought gently to the fieldturf, doesn't the schedule look--gulp--somewhat easy to you? Here it is:

Thu 9/10	Tennessee	8:30 pm
Sun 9/20	at Chicago	4:15 pm
Sun 9/27	at Cincinnati	4:15 pm
Sun 10/4	San Diego	8:20 pm
Sun 10/11	at Detroit	1:00 pm
Sun 10/18	Cleveland	1:00 pm
Sun 10/25	Minnesota	1:00 pm
	bye
Mon 11/9	at Denver	8:30 pm
Sun 11/15	Cincinnati	1:00 pm
Sun 11/22	at Kansas City	1:00 pm
Sun 11/29	at Baltimore	8:20 pm
Sun 12/6	Oakland	1:00 pm
Thu 12/10	at Cleveland	8:20 pm
Sun 12/20	Green Bay	1:00 pm
Sun 12/27	Baltimore	1:00 pm
Sun 1/3	at Miami

Tennesee and then at Chicago is a very tough start, without a doubt. But the rest of the NFC North matchups play out favorably, as there's no trip to Lambeau in December and the Lions--as long as the Bus doesn't show up and change the coin-flip call--are terrible. We get the Vikings, probably the North's best team, at home, too.

The AFC North is not exactly the best division in football, but even if the Browns and the Bengals improve, they likely cannot challenge Pittsburgh and Baltimore for the division crown.

That leaves the AFC non-divisional schedule. Trips to Denver and Kansas City used to be brutal. Neither of those teams have the talent Pittsburgh does, and Denver will be adjusting to a new head coach and the loss of Jay Cutler. The Charger game is at home. Should we expect a different result then what happened in last season's playoff game? Miami had a fine season last year, but gimmicks like the Wildcat offense don't work against great defenses like the Steelers (just ask the Dolphins about the Ravens playoff game). The Raiders are a mess.

To paraphrase Coach Tomlin, iron can make iron; playing perrennially tough teams like the Patriots every year during the season has probably made the Pittsburgh's defense that much better, for instance. The only way we see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning this year is in a potential playoff game.

So is the Steelers' 2009 schedule easy? Or will it be tougher than it looks?

How do you rank the AFC QBs?

Jason R — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:51:04 -0000

Brady, Big Ben, Huckleberry Hound, and Laser-Rocket Arm: Ranking the AFC quarterbacks on wins, not just stats

It's hard to argue with Ben Roethlisberger as one of the AFC's top quarterbacks. His escapability, toughness, and clutch-playmaking are unparalleled in today's NFL. But where does Big Ben rate among the quarterbacks of the AFC?

As Terry Bradshaw told CBS Sports' Lesley Visser a few months back, Ben is "more accurate" than Terry was. That's important these days; Bradshaw likely had the better receivers--two hall of famers, as Visser points out, in Stallworth and Swann (I do disagree with the hat afficianado Visser that Santonio Holmes is not a Pro-Bowl talent. Holmes is too young and has too much potential to dismiss the possibility of a Canton bust someday). Both Bradshaw and Ben were/are big and immensely hard to bring down.

But the AFC has some other big name QBs, too: namely guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who have won Super Bowls and pile up passing touchdowns like video game stats.

If you were ranking the AFC quarterbacks today, though, who would you take? If the goal were to win a Super Bowl on the field, not a fantasy championship on your laptop, which of these guys would you want behind center?

I rank them like this:

1. Roethlisberger. Call me a homer or a stooge. But before younz guys drop your Primanti Brothers in your lap, think about Ben's age and how he's still learning to throw from the pocket against certain defenses. Know that the much-maligned offensive line is getting better. And realize that Ben can someday be as good of a drop-back passer as he is an improviser, and you'll realize that Bradshaw's four Super Bowl wins record could fall--and then some.

2. Brady. The Patriots must not be too worried about Tom Brady's health. After all, they traded the gutsy and effective Matt Cassel away in the offseason, giving the three-time Supe winner Brady a huge vote of confidence after his season-ending surgery early last year. Brady's got the best receiving core in the league and (sorry, Mike Tomlin, bide your time) the best head coach as well. Until he shows us he can protect his bum knee, though, I rate Brady behind Ben.

3. Peyton Manning. He's one of the smartest players in the game. Yet gone are Marvin Harrison and Tony Dungy. Has the Colts' Manning, once known as Laser Rocket Arm, lost a bit of armstrength or milliseconds off his release as well? He's still one of the best in the league, but Manning's supporting cast isn't as good as the guys ranked ahead of him here.

4. Phillip Rivers. He's gotten better ever year. You may recall that the Steelers seriously thought about taking Rivers instead of Roethlisberger in the draft. The Chargers receivers are improving rapidly, and Rivers' goofy throwing motion doesn't stop him from making big plays down the football field. Con: He talks like Huckleberry Hound.

Good but not elite: Carson Palmer, Kerry Collins, Joe Flacco, Matt Cassel, David Garrard

Big Breakout possible: Matt Schaub, Trent Edwards

Due for a fall: Chad Pennington, Kyle Orton, Mark Sanchez

Flat out terrible: JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson

Post your own rankings or argue with mine below and thanks for reading.

Steeler Quote History Quiz #1

Jason R — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:01:31 -0000

In Steeler history, what was the "Debacle?"

Webster's dictionary defines a debacle as "when ice breaks apart." This is not the most common occurrence in professional football. Yet the Debacle, though not as famous as the Immaculate Reception or Greg Lloyd's famously foul-mouthed interview after the 1996 AFC Championship win, is still memorable to many Steeler fans. What was it? Who said it? In this first in a series of trivia trials known as Steeler Quote History Quizzes, I will test the noggins of the nerdiest of 'Burgh backers n'at. So, tell me...

Poll

The "debacle" was:

Greg Lloyd being called for roughing the passer in the 1996 divisional playoff game against the Bills

5 votes

Plaxico Burress making a catch, then spiking the ball...while the play was still live

34 votes

Bill Cowher's description of the officiating after the Steelers were incorrectly called for too many men on the field

41 votes

Barry Foster allowing a kickoff to go over his head and stay in play--twice in one game

28 votes

108 votes | Poll has closed

Walk one of the best commentators in baseball?

Jason R — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:08:47 -0000

"The Whirly Bird" gets better each year

Bob Walk remembers when the Pirates were good. He should--he was there. Walk's terrific performance in the 1992 NLCS, a game five 3-hitter to keep the Bucs in that legendary series, was one of the great playoff games ever by a Pittsburgh pitcher.

As a commentator in the broadcast booth, he's just as terrific.

Walk's 15 years in the booth are a testimony to his abilities. HIs sly jokes and self-degradation have always provided a nice counterpoint to milquetoast Greg Brown's clueless optimism. Working for a team with the recent history of losing, Walk's humor and insight are necessary and welcome.

Beyond his style, Walk is the rare player who has a balance of knowledge and timely anecdotal references.

Having listened to plenty of commentators around the league, I believe Walk is as good as any in the game today. That he has stayed loyal to the Pirates shows his character, since with his experience he could have surely jumped ship (sorry) for ESPN by now.

Is Bob Walk not one of the best commentators in baseball, national announcers included?

Poll

Bob Walk is

Great. I love listening to him

39 votes

Just ok

13 votes

Terrible and will always be affiliated with the Bucs losing

7 votes

59 votes | Poll has closed

Are the Bucs the worst franchise in pro sports?

Jason R — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:38:51 -0000

With the McLouth trade, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue otherwise; a rogues' gallery of franchise failures

Pirate fans--myself among them--are wondering just what it will take for the team to become winners once again. Without a winning season since 1992, the Bucs are laughingstocks this season, not even waiting until the All-Star Break to trade away their best player in exchange for "prospects." An effective strategy if you are the Yankees or the Red Sox; not such a great idea if you just plan to trade away the prospects as well, once they become established players. That's what the Bucs do.

With another sub-.500 season looming as the Western Pennsylvania summer hangs hot and humid over half-empty PNC Park, we must ask ourselves: are the Pirates the worst franchise in professional sports?

It's hard to argue that they are not. After all, the probability that the Bucs will continue their futility, not only this year but perhaps for one or two decades to come. The worst team in sports? To wit:

The Detroit Lions, the NFL's first-ever 0-16 team, were indeed putrid last season. However, since the Pirates were last in the playoffs, the Lions made the post-season five times.

The Los Angeles Clippers, long the patsies of the NBA, have made the playoffs twice since the Pirates last did.

The Cincinnati Bengals, widely regarded as the worst NFL team of the 1990s, won a division championship in 2005 (only to lose to the Steelers when Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer was injured early in their playoff matchup).

But, you might be saying, Major League Baseball has fewer playoff spots than the NFL or the NBA. Yet...

Even the disgraceful Kansas City Royals had two winning season since the Pirates last did, logging a 64-51 record in the strike-shortened season of 1994 and going 83-79 in 2003.

Can anyone argue that the Pirates aren't the worst team in pro sports?